Talk:Intel Active Management Technology

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low |hardware=y |hardware-importance=Low |security=y |security-importance=Mid |software=y |software-importance=Low |network=y |network-importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Computer Security |importance=High}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo=old(90d)

| archive=Talk:Intel Active Management Technology/Archive %(counter)d

| counter=1

| maxarchivesize=100K

| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}

| minthreadsleft=4

| minthreadstoarchive=1

}}

{{archive box |search=yes |auto=long}}

Neutrality

I marked the article with {{tl|POV}} because it is missing significant viewpoints, specifically the fact that Intel Management Engine [http://boingboing.net/2016/06/15/intel-x86-processors-ship-with.html cannot be audited, cannot be disabled], and is a de facto binary blob that has been [https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/active-management-technology criticized by the FSF] and other open source software advocates. This page reads too much like a pro-Intel piece. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

:Good move, considering the custodians at NSA, GCHQ, etc etc will hardly permit marking as an Imperial snow job as opposed to company sales pitch. Nice touch calling a back door a "bug"!--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)